This post is largely a response to earlier discussions with Brian Ross.
The conflicts between Islam and western values are the crux of my criticism of Islam and the threat I think it poses. None of this is about classic terrorism or painting all Muslims as terrorists.

Freedom of speech

There is a global campaign by Muslims to end freedom of speech by criminalising blasphemy. This is the logical first step in establishing Shariah law, by preventing people from being able to peacefully oppose it, either from within areas dominated by Muslims or from outside.

The pointy end of this campaign are the hundreds of Muslims who marched through Sydney and Melbourne behind banners calling for the beheading of an American who posted a dodgy youtube video mocking Muhammed. It is the death of more than 200 people during protests against cartoons published in a Danish newspaper that mocked Muhammed. It is the attempts, often successful, to assassinate journalists, authors and various critics of Islam.

The thick end of the wedge is attempts by Muslims and Muslim countries to criminalise blasphemy and remove protections on freedom of speech within European countries, the EU parliament, and the UN. America appears to be safe from such attacks on our basic freedoms, but elsewhere the threat is genuine and it is unlikely that Australia would escape unscathed if Europe capitulates.

Freedom of speech is the first basic freedom that we will lose if we do not vigorously stand up to both of these methods of attack. All of our other rights and freedoms will also be lost if we lose this battle. This battle is genuine and it is global, and the outcome is not certain. The way to win of course is to protect our freedom of speech by exercising it at every opportunity. This means not self censoring in the face of threats of physical violence. It means not self censoring out of fear that we will inflame a delicate situation or hurt people's feelings. These are mere tools by the enemy in the battle to destroy your rights and freedoms. If a Muslim feels that they are wrongly associated with efforts to destroy freedom and democracy it is their fault for not doing enough to protect freedom and democracy from fellow Muslims. It is their fault for not being able to make up their own mind whether they support freedom of speech and the right of people to mock Muhammed. It is their fault for not speaking out in defense of freedom of speech against the vulgar displays of hatred by other Muslims. It is their fault for feeling compelled to support efforts to criminalise blasphemy. It is not our fault for failing to walk on eggshells while attempting to protect our freedom of speech by exercising it.

Finally, it means not allowing our freedoms, or the freedoms of other western nations, to be lost in the same process. It means actively encouraging and protecting vulnerable freedoms in other parts of the world that are less fortunate than us to be able to take freedom of speech for granted. It means participating in cultural imperialism.

Defamation of religion is an issue that has been repeatedly addressed by some member states of the UN since 1999.
Several non binding resolutions have been voted on and accepted by the UN condemning defamation of religion.
The motions sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic conference
more here-www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations

The organization of Islamic Cooperation,OIC, is an international organization consisting of 57 member states.
The organization states that it is the collective voice of the muslim world
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Islamic_Conference

Did you know?



16 Sep 2012

Iran has seized on widespread Muslim outrage over a film insulting the Prophet Mohammad to revive the death threat against Salman Rushdie, raising the reward for killing him by US$500,000 (£320,000).

Ayatollah Hassan Sanei, head of a powerful state foundation providing relief to the poor, said the film would never have been made if the order to execute Rushdie, issued by the late Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been carried out.
...
"If the imam's order was carried out, the further insults in the form of caricatures, articles and films would not have taken place. The impertinence of the grudge-filled enemies of Islam, which is occurring under the flag of the Great Satan, America and the racist Zionists, can only be blocked by the absolute administration of this Islamic order."






How to achieve freedom of speech and conscience with Islamic characterisics.

But I forget - ayatollahs are just a tiny minority of Msulims; and anyway, there is nuffin Islamic about fatwas, everybody does them all the time; and anyway the west does it much worse; and anyway we went for the oil; and, and, and the Jews!!!

Chimp you are confusing impotence with benevolence. Abu was fond of this trick. Correlation does not equal causation.

keep flogging that dead horse Soren.

Lets be clear about one thing: those self righteous defenders of free speech who defend the rights of offensive cartoon and video publishers - should be defending the right of muslims to peacefully condemn those same cartoons and videos - with the same amount of zeal. And just so that we're absolutely clear, the vast majority of the cartoon and video protests by muslims were peaceful.